>> the value on the table for that second year which is an estimate for the value provided in the budget analyst's report appearses overstated because it overstates the fringe rate. if we take the top step for the 0953 job class and apply .45% fringe rate, which is what we expect the rate to look like for 2014. >> 45% is the fringe rate? >> they are liking to exceed 40% next fiscal year. >> okay. well, in any case with position authority that exists with that job classification, did won't exceed the amount it ought to be in the system, correct? >> as we approve that position and that position is vote in the system we're not paying more? >> that is direct in the item in front of you is a supplemental just for the current fiscal year.

you will see the full budget next fiscal year and it will automatically update to current fringe rates >> thank you. so if there are no questions at this time, why don't we open this item up for public comment r. there members of the public who wish to speak to items 7 and 8? seeing none, public comment is closed. so we have a few amendments before us. >> recommendation for amendments for 1 and 2 i guess 3 was with drawn. >> great, so we have a recommendation to the two items, or actually to 12-119 per the budget analyst's report. we have a motion to accept both recommendations 1 and 2 and 3 was withdrawn so we'll not take this [r-eplts/]ation and we can do that without objection.

to the underlying amendment as amended, supervisor avalos recommended forwarding without and we can do that without objection. thank you. we'll be looking at the budget that comes forward with a lot of interest. so thank you very much for all of your work. do we have any other items before us? >> that completes the agenda. >> before we adjourn i want to take the time for everybody serving with me on the bmx committee. budget and finance committee and thank the mayor's office and of course victor. with that, thank you all and we are adjourned. [ gavel ]

. >> good afternoon, everyone, the monday, january 14, 2013

meeting of the land use committee. our clerk is mr. derek evans. >> please make sure to silence all cell phones and electronic devices. all documents included as part of the file should be submitted to the clerk. items acted upon today will be acted upon in the january 29, 2013 board of supervisors meeting unless otherwise stated. >> we only have two items on

this agenda. >> item 1 is an ordinance amending the san francisco business code to permit permit expirations and extensions and to modify various fees. >> we have from the department of building inspection pamela levitt >> good afternoon, pamela levin, deputy director administrative services, department of building inspection. the legislation before you is designed it achieve the following objectives. the first is to continue to encourage the growth in the economy by extending the life for review and approval for permit applications for large projects from 360 to 720 days, clarifying the time limitations for permit processing so that it begins when the permit is provided to dbi for review and the clock stops when it is returned to planning for a design change that is required by the building department. extending the period of time for dbi to notify a project sponsor before a permit is canceled, and extending the time for completing all the work authorized by a building

permit. the second objective was to correct a publication error for the fees associated with 3r reports. this error occurred during the last code cycle when it was published. and the final is to reduce fees for copying plans to the levels consistent with the sunshine task force's recommendations. this legislation was unanimously approved by the building inspection commission in march of 2012. i'll be glad to answer any questions. >> i see no questions -- supervisor cohen. >> hi, good afternoon, pam. i have a quick question about the proposal for increasing the time period for the permit, extensions from 365 days to 2 -- excuse me to 720 days. i just wanted to know the reasons for this. >> pamela levin. every month we have a meeting with the code -- citizen advisory committee of the building inspection department and one of the things that routinely came up is that people would have to come back

and extend their permit even though they had, you know, it was stuck in one of the departments for a review and so in order to try to make it more advantageous for people to have permits to go through the process, to not keep coming back and having to pay again and again, we decided that we would extend it. >> okay. and another quick question about a timeline. the timeline when the ipic will be completing their infrastructure

project, do you know what the timeline is, the proposed timeline? >> yes, what happens is that you have, depending upon your valuation of your permit, you have, like, for smaller permits you have a year and then you can extend it for another year, but if you have anything over $100,000 to essentially just below 2.5 million, you have 180 days to do the work but then you would only have another year. and so what we're trying to do is be cognizant of the fact that it does take a long time to get large projects on the ground, it takes a long time to go through the process, make sure that you are meeting all the regulations of the city so we wanted to give enough time for people to be able to complete their projects. >> great, thank you very much. >> thank you. seeing no other questions let's open this up for public comment. is there anyone from the public that

would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, can we move this forward for a positive recommendation without objection? thank you. mr. evans, could you please call item 2. >> item no. 2 is a hearing on the interagency plan implementation committee's annual progress report and the controller's development impact fee report. >> thank you. i have called this annual hearing for today and presenting for the planning department is adam ferret we need the other mic on. it should be on. >> good afternoon,

supervisors, adam barrett from the planning department. this is annual report and presentation about the report of the interagency plan implementation committee. 3 4 1

. >> you are correct,in con hill doesn't have a cac in terms of the streetscape plan, this is a fairly old image, here there was a series of meetings actually, public meetings there, where the result was a ranked list of the capital improvements that they wanted to see so we are using that in that case. >> thank you. >> this is showing the haight

street, we're also looking at pedestrian improvements along market, franklin and golf street and we're working with a developer at 2001 market and looking at pedestrian improvements at dolores street as well that they would build as part of the in kind agreement. this is showing what was built as part of in kind revenue converting hays street. eastern naipbds neighborhoods has a number of projects. through the board adoption of that plan we were required to spend 80 percent of fee revenue on a set of predefined priority projects. in that case, that happened through the plan adoption. several of those are moving forward, notablely the ipic report or the ipic plan gives a significant amount of

funding to the 16th street improvements as well as to the 17th and folsom park, which is shown here, which is one of the priority improvements and the plans called for sort of a new park in each neighborhood and this would be the one in the initial district. we also did some planning in the showplace square which i think you were references around what open spaces could be developed there and in terms of prioritizing which ones were the most important. the community and cac felt this project at dagett triangle would be the priority project there. that's also an in kind agreement that would be built by the developer of the adjacent properties and provide a new public part in that neighborhood. lastly, balboa park has significantly fewer impact fees. most of that area is actually public land so there's not a significant amount of new development, new private develop. that's forecasted

there, but there has been one significant development there, the 1150 ocean avenue project where the new whole foods is and they built as part of their in kind agreement, they built an extension of this street here which will connect to the puc reservoir should it ever been developed in the future and they also have a pedestrian easement on another street through the project. those are just a few of the highlights. again, that's not everything that's in the plan. next year we will expect to incorporate the transit center district plan as well as the western soma which is currently before the board and the intention there is to roll that into the overall eastern neighborhoods implementation process, not to treat it separately but to look at the impact fee revenue and the projects sort of simultaneously and then at the cac as well. thank you, i'm happy to answer any questions. >> so i see no questions.

supervisor cohen. >> thank you. a couple questions for you. okay, on page 1 of the report it mentions the city having, mentions city discussions about evaluating other potential financing sources or infrastructure improvements in the eastern neighborhoods such as infrastructure finance districts. i was wondering if you can give me a status update on those discussions. >> sure. so that was from a, i think it was 2009 or 2010, after the eastern neighborhoods was adopted there was, the impact fees, revenue are not expected to cover the full amount of improvements needed to serve growth, in fact about 30 percent in general, then you have a number of other existing sources such as bonds or state and federal grants, et cetera, but there's still a gap. so

there was a group formed to study potential alternatives and one of their recommendations was public infrastructure finances. there was one created off rincon hill but that was sort of a pilot there. we've been working with the mayor's budget office and the capital planning committee and i actually invited brian strong, the capital planning director, but there's currently the capital planning committee meeting right now, so he would actually be able to tell you a little more. but what we've been working on is identifying the need and saying these are the opportunities or the -- sorry -- the needs for the infrastructure development based on the eastern neighborhood plans, based on the kind of streets and open streets and child care facilities and what not that are identified in the plans. so that's been sort of our role in the planning department and

we've been hearing it a lot from the eastern neighborhood cac, as i imagine you might be as well. >> yes. >> so we understand there's a need to fill this infrastructure gap. what we've been working with with the mayor's budget office on is to put that in the plan so they can follow up on potential financing sources. whether that is or not i can't really say but i'm glad to follow up. >> that's a lot. is what you just presented, is that housed in a document, in a memo --. >> there's nothing right now but the intention is to have it as part of the capital plan, as part of the hearings for the adoption of the capital plan there would be discussion on that. >> what's the timeline on

completing the environmental review on 22 fillmore? the extension. >> right, that would really be a question that mta would be better to answer. but what we have in the report is we have money in fiscal year 14 and 15 and 17 that is intended to go towards those improvements, both the transit and the streetscape improvements on the 22. >> back up, let me make sure i heard you correctly, fiscal year 14 and 15, 16 and 17. >> 13 and 14, 15/16 and 17. that was their best schedule at the time and i'm not sure if that's still their schedule or not. >> that's it for me, mr. chair. >> i just wanted to ask if the fee deferral implementation has had any positive impact on spuring projects and if you can

give me your honest answer, mr. barrett >> honestly, i have no idea. i think there was a hearing a while back about that. i'm not sure if it ever happened. i can't actually remember, it was scheduled and may have been postponed. if you look at this slide you can see that where the sort of if you look at the column under fy15 and fy17, you have these spikes and a lot of that has to do with our projections with when we expect the developments to pay their fees. all of our spreadsheets assume a continuation of the fee deferral program basically because that's just a more conservative assumption. >> uh-huh. >> we do understand that it's currently scheduled to sunset at the end of this fiscal year, i believe. so if that were the case a lot of the numbers here would actually shift forward, which doesn't necessarily mean that the project is going it

happen sooner because big capital projects sort of have their own timelines, but the money would be enhanced. as for the impacts on development, i really couldn't say. >> and i'm excited about the glen park and transit center district plans moving forward. i know residents of the areas around the plants want immediate improvements but i know these are 20 year processes for community improvements but hopefully there's a good process so that people feel they have been heard as they develop priorities in each of these different areas. thank you for all your hard work. >> we do try to have a mix of funds going, major projects as well as smaller projects that can be implemented near term or matching funds that are existing so it's not all pushed up into the future. but you're right, it is a 20 year time

hoer rise enso it's not all going to be built right now. >> so i see no other questions. let's open this up for public comment. is there anyone from the public that would like to speak? i see no public comment. public comment is closed. colleagues, can we continue this to the call of the chair without objection? thank you. and mr. evans, is there any other business before us? >> that concludes today's business, mr. chair. >> great. meeting adjourned. thank you, everyone. (meeting adjourned). >> we love our parks, but we love... >> and the community who is

really the core of it all, came together and said what we need is a place for our teenager to play, not just play grounds for the kids and soccer fields but we need a skate park that will keep the kids home in the neighborhood so they can play where they live. >> the children in the neighborhood and it will be a major boone. and we have generations, the youth generations that will be able to use this park in different places. >> the best park in san francisco right here. >> creating place where people can be active and lead, active, healthy life styles that are going to just stay with them for life. ♪